Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consent Orders Late Filings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics commission accepts two consent orders for late filings; fines imposed
Summary
The Government Transparency & Campaign Finance Commission accepted consent orders resolving two separate matters: Doug Ingram, a Mulberry City Council candidate, agreed to pay $250 for a late personal financial disclosure; Lorraine Cochran Johnson agreed to a $250 late-filing penalty for an April 30, 2024 candidate report; commissioners accepted
The Government Transparency & Campaign Finance Commission on Jan. 15 accepted two consent orders resolving separate alleged filing violations by local candidates.
Staff presented item c, case 24-0125-c, regarding Doug Ingram, a candidate for Mulberry City Council in 2024. Staff said Ingram missed the deadline to file a personal financial disclosure statement after qualifying for office, immediately cooperated with staff, filed the disclosure and agreed to a consent order requiring payment of a $125 late fee and a $125 civil penalty (total $250). Staff reported the consent order was executed and that the fines were paid by the end of the prior week.
Staff then presented item e, case e24-0116-c, in the matter of Lorraine Cochran Johnson, who ran for DeKalb County CEO in 2024. Staff said Cochran Johnson acknowledged an April 30, 2024 CCDR was filed late, cooperated promptly and agreed to a $250 late-filing penalty by consent order. Staff noted the consent order had been executed; staff would follow up on payment status if necessary (the commission noted fines typically are due within 30 days).
The chair moved to accept both consent orders together under the commission’s procedural rule for handling consent items. A second was recorded, and the commission approved both consent orders by voice vote.
The commission recorded acceptance of the consent orders on the meeting record and moved on to other agenda business.
Additional administrative dismissals listed on the meeting agenda were recorded as item 5; staff reported there were no questions and no action was required for those administrative dismissals during the meeting.
